I assume you mean least likely to be targeted but still live in:
North Western Argentina, just East of the Andes. It's far away from any nuclear target, it's valleys would protect against irradiated clouds coming from the western front.
It has a diverse amount of food, water untouched by radiation, and has a diverse climatalogical system that could maintain a longterm ecological state in the case of climate drop and soot in the atmosphere. You could theoretically survive for years there.
The La Rioja Province, Arg. would be ideal, avoid the lowlying Pampas region, though it might make a good hunting ground, radiation would most definately seep in.
TTAPS report:
First 1 to 3 months of nuclear winter: 10 to 25 % of soot injected is immediately removed by precipitation, while the rest is transported over the globe in 1 to 2 weeks. SCOPE figures for July smoke injection: 22° C drop in mid-latitudes. 10° C drop in humid climates. 75 % decrease in rainfall in mid-latitudes.
2007-06-13 19:40:16
·
answer #1
·
answered by Jon 4
·
1⤊
2⤋
During the bad days of the Cold War, Best place was NOWHERE. Both sides had ICBMs Targeted to ensure that NO PLACE on the planet would be safe. This included but was not limited to Antarctica, the Falklands, the Azores. and just about any other out of the way place.
MAD Mutually Assured Destruction. EVERYONE DIES. That's how the game was played for 40 years
2007-06-14 07:58:42
·
answer #2
·
answered by Wolf of the Black Moon 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
With every day pass, our country is getting into more and more trouble. The inflation, unemployment and falling value of dollar are the main concern for our Government but authorities are just sleeping, they don’t want to face the fact. Media is also involve in it, they are force to stop showing the real economic situation to the people. I start getting more concern about my future as well as my family after watching the response of our Government for the people that affected by hurricane Katrina.
According to recent studies made by World Bank, the coming crisis will be far worse than initially predicted. So if you're already preparing for the crisis (or haven't started yet) make sure you watch this video at http://www.familysurvival.tv and discover the 4 BIG issues you'll have to deal with when the crisis hits, and how to solve them fast (before the disaster strikes your town!) without spending $1,000s on overrated items and useless survival books.
2014-09-25 19:28:45
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Ironically, I recall reading about a British couple who were worried about surviving nuclear war. They scouted out a number of locations and decided on a remote bit of land known as the Falkland Islands. Shortly thereafter, England and Argentina went to war over ownership of the islands. True story.
2007-06-14 02:26:10
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
if a nuclear war breaks out the best place to stay is planet mars the US and russia has enough nukes to blow up the planet 3 times over and it only takes 10-15 mins from wherever it is launch regardless where all screwed.
2007-06-14 04:21:44
·
answer #5
·
answered by mz 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Probably hiroshima or nagasaki. I can't believe the countries with nuclear weapons would have the stomach to hit these places again!
2007-06-14 02:31:19
·
answer #6
·
answered by koobstr 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Antarctica
2007-06-14 02:19:38
·
answer #7
·
answered by Zeltar 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
In a nuclear bomb shelter. . .or antartica or deep under the Pacific Ocean or at the top of Mount Everest or at the moon. . .
2007-06-14 02:19:51
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Too many variables.
In order to answer your question we would need to know:
Nuclear war between who?
What is the issue being fought over?
What are each sides goals and desired 'end state?'
2007-06-14 11:30:45
·
answer #9
·
answered by MikeGolf 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
A small town called Ringold Oklahoma.
2007-06-14 02:23:39
·
answer #10
·
answered by Davetheman 3
·
0⤊
0⤋